|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jun 29, 2011 6:34:29 GMT -8
New (peer reviewed) study about The Great Barrier Reefs. They report that "overall regional coral cover was stable (averaging 29% and ranging from 23% to 33% across years) with no net decline between 1995 and 2009." And to emphasize this fact, they forthrightly state that they found "no evidence of consistent, system-wide decline in coral cover since 1995."
Coral Reefs can be added to a long list of claims from the Global Warming Crowd that simply are not true. Scientists claim a global warming link to their studies and get money. Environmental Groups can claim anything and the mainstream media will go along with no fact checks. Is it no surprise we continually hear lies?
|
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Jun 29, 2011 7:47:42 GMT -8
New (peer reviewed) study about The Great Barrier Reefs. They report that "overall regional coral cover was stable (averaging 29% and ranging from 23% to 33% across years) with no net decline between 1995 and 2009." And to emphasize this fact, they forthrightly state that they found "no evidence of consistent, system-wide decline in coral cover since 1995."
Coral Reefs can be added to a long list of claims from the Global Warming Crowd that simply are not true. Scientists claim a global warming link to their studies and get money. Environmental Groups can claim anything and the mainstream media will go along with no fact checks. Is it no surprise we continually hear lies? First of all this is a biased web site... no surprise. Not surprising that the 45 study locations are doing ok. The prime GBR reefs are enough distance offshore to not get extremely impacted by industrial runoff and siltation. Plus Australia does a pretty darn good job in protection of its coral reefs. Afteral, they are an economic boon generated from tourism. How bout the coral reefs just a bit north off New Guinea, Borneo and many parts of Indonesia? In areas of date palm farms, cities and deforestation due to China's appetite, the coral reefs are extremely impacted and gone over large areas. Why don't you look up comparison data for these areas? The problem Bill is you are on a global warming crusade and your posts are totally predictable. Because coral reefs are hanging in there in some areas where they have the highest level of protection you make blanket statements regarding the health of coral reefs overall. While I do agree with you on some level that there are many unanswered questions regarding warming and cause / effect, I have a background in the scientific method and understand how it works. I would rather get my information, for example, on the health of coral reefs from a range of coral scientists than an "impact denier" web site or a talk show host.... for the same reason I don't go to a car mechanic to get my annual physical. Again, I bring you back to the example of the coral reef I dove in New Guinea in 2008. "Calypso" reef had been almost 100% bleached ten years prior, but was once again flourishing in 2008. So certain levels of bleaching are normal and cyclic. So are man's activities affecting levels of warming, and thus impacting coral reefs? No one knows 100% the exact answer...and you certainly don't, but I think its worth looking at because the potential ramifications are astronomical. Oh and by the way, coral reefs are systems. They support a wide range of fishes, invertebrates algae etc. The health of a coral reef can be affected even by the population of pelagic sharks that feed on fishes that consume corals. All I'm saying is that we are talking about complexity here, and blanket statements about complex systems in nature are rarely accurate. |
|
|
|
Post by azdick on Jun 29, 2011 9:35:40 GMT -8
New (peer reviewed) study about The Great Barrier Reefs. They report that "overall regional coral cover was stable (averaging 29% and ranging from 23% to 33% across years) with no net decline between 1995 and 2009." And to emphasize this fact, they forthrightly state that they found "no evidence of consistent, system-wide decline in coral cover since 1995."
Coral Reefs can be added to a long list of claims from the Global Warming Crowd that simply are not true. Scientists claim a global warming link to their studies and get money. Environmental Groups can claim anything and the mainstream media will go along with no fact checks. Is it no surprise we continually hear lies? I have been visiting and snorkeling in the world's second largest reef - Yucatan Peninsula since 1991. The amount of degradation to the reef and loss of fish is staggering. Some of it is hurricane related, but much of it is unregulated development and poor environmental infrastructure. it is time to stop denying what is happening to the oceans. |
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Jun 29, 2011 12:40:30 GMT -8
New (peer reviewed) study about The Great Barrier Reefs. They report that "overall regional coral cover was stable (averaging 29% and ranging from 23% to 33% across years) with no net decline between 1995 and 2009." And to emphasize this fact, they forthrightly state that they found "no evidence of consistent, system-wide decline in coral cover since 1995."
Coral Reefs can be added to a long list of claims from the Global Warming Crowd that simply are not true. Scientists claim a global warming link to their studies and get money. Environmental Groups can claim anything and the mainstream media will go along with no fact checks. Is it no surprise we continually hear lies? I have been visiting and snorkeling in the world's second largest reef - Yucatan Peninsula since 1991. The amount of degradation to the reef and loss of fish is staggering. Some of it is hurricane related, but much of it is unregulated development and poor environmental infrastructure. it is time to stop denying what is happening to the oceans. See the difference Az... is that you have seen it first hand....and like myself, you don't have to wade through web sites to find one that agrees with your world view to understand what is really going on. Remember the old saying regarding environmental impacts and degradation?... "out of sight, out of mind". If I just drove down the 15 to commute to an office, then came home and turned on my computer every day....the whole house of cards might have to come down before I ever noticed an environmental issue or impact!  |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 29, 2011 14:45:37 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2011 10:36:40 GMT -8
Bill must still own oil company stock or work for one.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 1, 2011 15:24:53 GMT -8
New (peer reviewed) study about The Great Barrier Reefs. They report that "overall regional coral cover was stable (averaging 29% and ranging from 23% to 33% across years) with no net decline between 1995 and 2009." And to emphasize this fact, they forthrightly state that they found "no evidence of consistent, system-wide decline in coral cover since 1995."
Coral Reefs can be added to a long list of claims from the Global Warming Crowd that simply are not true. Scientists claim a global warming link to their studies and get money. Environmental Groups can claim anything and the mainstream media will go along with no fact checks. Is it no surprise we continually hear lies? First of all this is a biased web site... no surprise. Not surprising that the 45 study locations are doing ok. The prime GBR reefs are enough distance offshore to not get extremely impacted by industrial runoff and siltation. Plus Australia does a pretty darn good job in protection of its coral reefs. Afteral, they are an economic boon generated from tourism. How bout the coral reefs just a bit north off New Guinea, Borneo and many parts of Indonesia? In areas of date palm farms, cities and deforestation due to China's appetite, the coral reefs are extremely impacted and gone over large areas. Why don't you look up comparison data for these areas? The problem Bill is you are on a global warming crusade and your posts are totally predictable. Because coral reefs are hanging in there in some areas where they have the highest level of protection you make blanket statements regarding the health of coral reefs overall. While I do agree with you on some level that there are many unanswered questions regarding warming and cause / effect, I have a background in the scientific method and understand how it works. I would rather get my information, for example, on the health of coral reefs from a range of coral scientists than an "impact denier" web site or a talk show host.... for the same reason I don't go to a car mechanic to get my annual physical. Again, I bring you back to the example of the coral reef I dove in New Guinea in 2008. "Calypso" reef had been almost 100% bleached ten years prior, but was once again flourishing in 2008. So certain levels of bleaching are normal and cyclic. So are man's activities affecting levels of warming, and thus impacting coral reefs? No one knows 100% the exact answer...and you certainly don't, but I think its worth looking at because the potential ramifications are astronomical. Oh and by the way, coral reefs are systems. They support a wide range of fishes, invertebrates algae etc. The health of a coral reef can be affected even by the population of pelagic sharks that feed on fishes that consume corals. All I'm saying is that we are talking about complexity here, and blanket statements about complex systems in nature are rarely accurate. It is a biased web site but they are reporting a study that is not biased. The study found coral cover was stable. I am addressing coral cover as related to global warming only. The other things you bring up may in fact be happening. Good luck getting anyone to listen when the Global Warming farce is taking all the O2 out of the room. |
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Jul 1, 2011 17:48:46 GMT -8
First of all this is a biased web site... no surprise. Not surprising that the 45 study locations are doing ok. The prime GBR reefs are enough distance offshore to not get extremely impacted by industrial runoff and siltation. Plus Australia does a pretty darn good job in protection of its coral reefs. Afteral, they are an economic boon generated from tourism. How bout the coral reefs just a bit north off New Guinea, Borneo and many parts of Indonesia? In areas of date palm farms, cities and deforestation due to China's appetite, the coral reefs are extremely impacted and gone over large areas. Why don't you look up comparison data for these areas? The problem Bill is you are on a global warming crusade and your posts are totally predictable. Because coral reefs are hanging in there in some areas where they have the highest level of protection you make blanket statements regarding the health of coral reefs overall. While I do agree with you on some level that there are many unanswered questions regarding warming and cause / effect, I have a background in the scientific method and understand how it works. I would rather get my information, for example, on the health of coral reefs from a range of coral scientists than an "impact denier" web site or a talk show host.... for the same reason I don't go to a car mechanic to get my annual physical. Again, I bring you back to the example of the coral reef I dove in New Guinea in 2008. "Calypso" reef had been almost 100% bleached ten years prior, but was once again flourishing in 2008. So certain levels of bleaching are normal and cyclic. So are man's activities affecting levels of warming, and thus impacting coral reefs? No one knows 100% the exact answer...and you certainly don't, but I think its worth looking at because the potential ramifications are astronomical. Oh and by the way, coral reefs are systems. They support a wide range of fishes, invertebrates algae etc. The health of a coral reef can be affected even by the population of pelagic sharks that feed on fishes that consume corals. All I'm saying is that we are talking about complexity here, and blanket statements about complex systems in nature are rarely accurate. It is a biased web site but they are reporting a study that is not biased. The study found coral cover was stable. I am addressing coral cover as related to global warming only. The other things you bring up may in fact be happening. Good luck getting anyone to listen when the Global Warming farce is taking all the O2 out of the room. It is true that the Global Warming debate has become the gorilla in the room and has pushed quite a bit of important debate aside.... that I don't disagree with. |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Jul 2, 2011 14:48:57 GMT -8
The "Global Warming Farce" -- I love it. Supposedly, 97% of scientists believe it is fact and that it is caused by human behavior but the lunatic fringe thinks it's a farce so it must be so. Granted, this is from NPR, but I stumbled across it earlier today and thought it was on point: www.npr.org/2011/06/21/137309964/climate-change-public-skeptical-scientists-sureIt leads with this: "The American public is less likely to believe in global warming than it was just five years ago. Yet, paradoxically, scientists are more confident than ever that climate change is real and caused largely by human activities." If you don't like the NPR spin, the original source is at environment.yale.edu/climate/files/ClimateBeliefsMay2011.pdf . Yoda out... . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2011 15:28:32 GMT -8
Spend an hour. Educate youselves. There's plenty in here for both sides of the debate:
|
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Jul 2, 2011 15:44:06 GMT -8
The "Global Warming Farce" -- I love it. Supposedly, 97% of scientists believe it is fact and that it is caused by human behavior but the lunatic fringe thinks it's a farce so it must be so. Granted, this is from NPR, but I stumbled across it earlier today and thought it was on point: www.npr.org/2011/06/21/137309964/climate-change-public-skeptical-scientists-sureIt leads with this: "The American public is less likely to believe in global warming than it was just five years ago. Yet, paradoxically, scientists are more confident than ever that climate change is real and caused largely by human activities." If you don't like the NPR spin, the original source is at environment.yale.edu/climate/files/ClimateBeliefsMay2011.pdf . Yoda out... . The one issue the Right gets the least is regarding the environment. I really wish that the "impact deniers" were right actually. Limbaugh, Beck, Aztec Bill et al. I really wish that the Environmental wackos" were spinning the story and the data. Quite a few on the Right get it... mostly the hunters and fisherman, but the "true beleiver" crowd don't. I'm actually pretty Conservative on some issues, but have voted the Dems for many years just on the one issue that is the most important to me. After all, the heavy users are all aligned on one side. That would be mineral rights, big oil, BIA etc. But, let's forget the Global warming issue for a minute. What is happening to the Oceans today is unprecedented and slowly, but surely, catastrophic. Nutrient loading in the Gulf, "dead zones" off Oregon, explosions of jellyfish and squid populations occupying vacated niches left by decimated fish populations, the "garbage patch" of plastic in the Pacific Gyre are just a few examples. I have a few right wing (there are a couple) friends from the nature filming business, but they don't deny our activities are changing the World's oceans at a rapid pace. One of these friends collects marine samples for pharmaceutical R& D at depths of up to 300 feet on a re-breather around the World. He dives remote places like New Guinea, east Timor, Africa etc. He shakes his head when he tells me of 1 hour decompression stops in these remote areas and never seeing a single shark or pelagic fish! 20 years ago I had no problem baiting 20-30 blue sharks off the San Diego coast for filming purposes. If I do it now, I am lucky to get one with 5 x the amount of bait and having to research bait aggregations and bottom topography. Getting back to Global Warming...I don't research the issue that much or read the scientific journals in depth. I just know from what I (and my colleagues in the nature filming business) have seen in my lifetime.... that to deny man's ability to dramatically change the natural systems of the Earth is intellectually impossible. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 2, 2011 15:53:50 GMT -8
The "Global Warming Farce" -- I love it. Supposedly, 97% of scientists believe it is fact and that it is caused by human behavior but the lunatic fringe thinks it's a farce so it must be so. Granted, this is from NPR, but I stumbled across it earlier today and thought it was on point: www.npr.org/2011/06/21/137309964/climate-change-public-skeptical-scientists-sureIt leads with this: "The American public is less likely to believe in global warming than it was just five years ago. Yet, paradoxically, scientists are more confident than ever that climate change is real and caused largely by human activities." If you don't like the NPR spin, the original source is at environment.yale.edu/climate/files/ClimateBeliefsMay2011.pdf . Yoda out... . The one issue the Right gets the least is regarding the environment. I really wish that the "impact deniers" were right actually. Limbaugh, Beck, Aztec Bill et al. I really wish that the Environmental wackos" were spinning the story and the data. Quite a few on the Right get it... mostly the hunters and fisherman, but the "true beleiver" crowd don't. I'm actually pretty Conservative on some issues, but have voted the Dems for many years just on the one issue that is the most important to me. After all, the heavy users are all aligned on one side. That would be mineral rights, big oil, BIA etc. But, let's forget the Global warming issue for a minute. What is happening to the Oceans today is unprecedented and slowly, but surely, catastrophic. Nutrient loading in the Gulf, "dead zones" off Oregon, explosions of jellyfish and squid populations occupying vacated niches left by decimated fish populations, the "garbage patch" of plastic in the Pacific Gyre are just a few examples. I have a few right wing (there are a couple) friends from the nature filming business, but they don't deny our activities are changing the World's oceans at a rapid pace. One of these friends collects marine samples for pharmaceutical R& D at depths of up to 300 feet on a re-breather around the World. He dives remote places like New Guinea, east Timor, Africa etc. He shakes his head when he tells me of 1 hour decompression stops in these remote areas and never seeing a single shark or pelagic fish! 20 years ago I had no problem baiting 20-30 blue sharks off the San Diego coast for filming purposes. If I do it now, I am lucky to get one with 5 x the amount of bait and having to research bait aggregations and bottom topography. Getting back to Global Warming...I don't research the issue that much or read the scientific journals in depth. I just know from what I (and my colleagues in the nature filming business) have seen in my lifetime.... that to deny man's ability to dramatically change the natural systems of the Earth is intellectually impossible. In my mind, no question about what we have done to nature. I have seen many tragic examples. I have also seen some recovery efforts that are having success. Warming? Another story entirely. |
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Jul 2, 2011 16:25:12 GMT -8
Spend an hour. Educate youselves. There's plenty in here for both sides of the debate: Definitely a worthwhile discussion / presentation. |
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Jul 2, 2011 16:32:00 GMT -8
The one issue the Right gets the least is regarding the environment. I really wish that the "impact deniers" were right actually. Limbaugh, Beck, Aztec Bill et al. I really wish that the Environmental wackos" were spinning the story and the data. Quite a few on the Right get it... mostly the hunters and fisherman, but the "true believer" crowd don't. I'm actually pretty Conservative on some issues, but have voted the Dems for many years just on the one issue that is the most important to me. After all, the heavy users are all aligned on one side. That would be mineral rights, big oil, BIA etc. But, let's forget the Global warming issue for a minute. What is happening to the Oceans today is unprecedented and slowly, but surely, catastrophic. Nutrient loading in the Gulf, "dead zones" off Oregon, explosions of jellyfish and squid populations occupying vacated niches left by decimated fish populations, the "garbage patch" of plastic in the Pacific Gyre are just a few examples. I have a few right wing (there are a couple) friends from the nature filming business, but they don't deny our activities are changing the World's oceans at a rapid pace. One of these friends collects marine samples for pharmaceutical R& D at depths of up to 300 feet on a re-breather around the World. He dives remote places like New Guinea, east Timor, Africa etc. He shakes his head when he tells me of 1 hour decompression stops in these remote areas and never seeing a single shark or pelagic fish! 20 years ago I had no problem baiting 20-30 blue sharks off the San Diego coast for filming purposes. If I do it now, I am lucky to get one with 5 x the amount of bait and having to research bait aggregations and bottom topography. Getting back to Global Warming...I don't research the issue that much or read the scientific journals in depth. I just know from what I (and my colleagues in the nature filming business) have seen in my lifetime.... that to deny man's ability to dramatically change the natural systems of the Earth is intellectually impossible. In my mind, no question about what we have done to nature. I have seen many tragic examples. I have also seen some recovery efforts that are having success. Warming? Another story entirely. Win, I am posting my examples simply because the far Right discounts impacts to the World's oceans in exactly the same way they will discount Global Warming. People like Limbaugh, Beck, "true believers on the Right" etc. lump all claims of impacts to the environment under one tent. It's intellectually the easiest thing to do and reassures an audience that really.... would rather not know. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 2, 2011 16:55:28 GMT -8
In my mind, no question about what we have done to nature. I have seen many tragic examples. I have also seen some recovery efforts that are having success. Warming? Another story entirely. Win, I am posting my examples simply because the far Right discounts impacts to the World's oceans in exactly the same way they will discount Global Warming. People like Limbaugh, Beck, "true believers on the Right" etc. lump all claims of impacts to the environment under one tent. It's intellectually the easiest thing to do and reassures an audience that really.... would rather not know. Just want to make sure my concern and awareness of environmental problems do not get confused with this warming idiocy. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jul 3, 2011 15:17:24 GMT -8
The "Global Warming Farce" -- I love it. Supposedly, 97% of scientists believe it is fact and that it is caused by human behavior but the lunatic fringe thinks it's a farce so it must be so. Granted, this is from NPR, but I stumbled across it earlier today and thought it was on point: www.npr.org/2011/06/21/137309964/climate-change-public-skeptical-scientists-sureIt leads with this: "The American public is less likely to believe in global warming than it was just five years ago. Yet, paradoxically, scientists are more confident than ever that climate change is real and caused largely by human activities." If you don't like the NPR spin, the original source is at environment.yale.edu/climate/files/ClimateBeliefsMay2011.pdf . Yoda out... . Well, I checked your links and the NPR article nowhere justifies the "97% of scientists" claim, although if the issue is simply has the average global temperature risen in the past century, I don't think there is any question that it has. It has risen from 56.58F in 1900 to 57.99F in 2009 according to my 2011 World Almanac. A whopping 1.41 degrees F. The big question is WHY? They don't address that, nor do they attach a 97% figure to scientists who believe it is because of human activity. The Yale survey is worthless for gleaning any empirical evidence about the "why", it merely reflects unscientific opinion of some 1000 random individuals.. I would think a "moderate" would be a bit more inquisitive before slinging around the "lunatic" epithet. www.climatechangefacts.info/By the way, YoYo, do you get royalties off this? www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYXOwzNUSZA |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Jul 3, 2011 19:45:00 GMT -8
Well, I checked your links and the NPR article nowhere justifies the "97% of scientists" claim I would think a "moderate" would be a bit more inquisitive before slinging around the "lunatic" epithet. Google +97% +"global warming". You'll get a little over 20 million hits, oh inquisitive one. Truthfully, I didn't really research it. It's not that important to me. That's why I said, " Supposedly, 97% of scientists believe it is fact..." Yoda out... . |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jul 4, 2011 9:49:20 GMT -8
New (peer reviewed) study about The Great Barrier Reefs. They report that "overall regional coral cover was stable (averaging 29% and ranging from 23% to 33% across years) with no net decline between 1995 and 2009." And to emphasize this fact, they forthrightly state that they found "no evidence of consistent, system-wide decline in coral cover since 1995."
Coral Reefs can be added to a long list of claims from the Global Warming Crowd that simply are not true. Scientists claim a global warming link to their studies and get money. Environmental Groups can claim anything and the mainstream media will go along with no fact checks. Is it no surprise we continually hear lies? Bill, why did you not post the study itself? |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jul 4, 2011 12:56:45 GMT -8
Well, I checked your links and the NPR article nowhere justifies the "97% of scientists" claim I would think a "moderate" would be a bit more inquisitive before slinging around the "lunatic" epithet. Google +97% +"global warming". You'll get a little over 20 million hits, oh inquisitive one. Truthfully, I didn't really research it. It's not that important to me. That's why I said, " Supposedly, 97% of scientists believe it is fact..." Yoda out... . Okay, fair enough. It's just that the 97% claim is basically an example of what is known as argumentum ad verecundiam. A real authority in any field is a truthful, concientious expert. Even that is no guarantee that they are right. There used to be a so-called "consensus" that the sun revolved around the earth. The 97% figure is reminiscent of so many TV commercials, where the actor in a white coat says something like, "97% of doctors recommend Brand X for headache relief". Anyway, have a happy 4th, and we can pick up the snot slinging later. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jul 8, 2011 10:08:40 GMT -8
The bottom line is this:
(A) Climate change is nothing new and may be at work in significant ways currently.
(B) Human actions have no doubt had an impact on world climate patterns, though the degree to which this is the case is not perfectly understood.
(C) Moving from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources is a great idea, but that transition will be very, very difficult and will take many years, probably decades. Furthermore . . .
(D) . . . there is no need to panic. The hysteria that inspires Barrack Obama's stated goal to make energy costs "skyrocket" (his word, not mine) is not justified. What is needed is steady, methodical research into new energy sources instead of panicky moves that will be little or no good and in the process cause Americans to suffer unnecessarily. (Remember the Carter synfuels debacle?)
(E) We will need petroleum products for decades (actually, when you think of petrochemical products, petroleum will be needed forever). And, since buying oil from our enemies makes no geopolitical sense, limiting domestic oil production is crazy.
(F) So long as China and India continue to build more and more coal-fired power plants, and also to sell more and more cars and trucks domestically, the West could all commit suicide and the climate would not be healed.
See how easy it is to approach this important issue calmly and logically?
You are welcome.
AzWm
|
|
